Family Values: Divorce

[pgrmdave]

I know people whose parents have divorced, and people whose parents have not, but probably should. If the divorce goes well, then it is okay, the children don't seem to have adverse effects. If the parents don't get divorced but don't get along, it is very, very painful for the child. If the divorce goes poorly, or the child become neglected, then it tends to be bad, but staying togeather isn't necessarily the better choice. Ideally, a child will grow up in a loving home, whether it's with one parent, two parents, a tribal community, homosexual or heterosexual, a child needs to feel loved and secure.

[bartock]

imo a stable family unit is required for the offspring to grow to fulfill its potentials so from the evolution point of view it is critical that there be no or minimum divorce.

[HappytheStripper]

The question is: Are we heading towards a more dynamic view of ourselves as individuals and as a culture - via the trauma divorce creates in the family home - or are we on a downhill road to gradual cultural decay?

 

Hi MM ... firstly (N) for never divorced .. although (N) for nearly would be more like it ... although I have been affected by divorce ... I am married with 4 daughters ...

 

Family Values ... what do you define as "family values???"

 

Next to the death of a loved one ... the ending of a relationship .... is the single most emotionally painfull of experience ... that any of us will ever go through ... everyone has been touched by someone's experience of divorce or seperation ...

 

When we are faced with the end of our own relationship ... we are totally un-prepared ...

 

Lets face it ... "breaking up is hard to do???" ... and yet divorce statistics are so high ... why??? Why do we enter into these relationships???

 

In general ... when we tell the story of "falling in love" ... the story follows a very specific format ... this format is historical in context ... "they met ... fell in love ... got married ... had 2.4 kids ... a dog and a cat ..."

 

In our individual lives ... relationships are the most important vehicle by which we create our identities ... and re-assess our values ... this is how we define ourselves ... a relationship is a process ... not a destination we by chance or change - arrive at ... and it is not necessarily - the final emotional resting place of the persons whom enter into it ...

 

Since this is the case ... it may well be that we create a number of relationships to acheive that self - definition ... and ... consequently ... we may end one or several relationships throughout our lifetime ...

 

The one reason that endings are so difficult is ... because we dont know how to end them ... our parents never taught us this - either because they didnt know themselves ... or they didnt want to know ... yet with increasing frequency ... relationships do end ...

 

These statistics show ... the myth of "love ... lasts forever" to be that ... "love - DOSENT - last forever" ... In our unconscious mythologies of love ... we see marriage as the cementing of a relationship ... through ceremony ... we assume that marriage is the goal itself ... cos thats what our parents did ... we somehow believe that love will drop us off at a doorstep ... of a committed relationship ... and that once we have entered into it ... love will resolve all our differences ... only to find after a year the marriage became the myth ... ...

 

Relationships have gone through innumerable transformations ... while our thinking about them ... has not ... and as a result an incredible number of people are suffering through the trauma of ending their realtionships with guilt ... anger .. and rage ... and its not just the 2 principle sums of the relationship either ... these days it has the ability to traumatise the "whole" family .. extended relatives and all ...

 

So how was it again you defined family values??? How about societal values??? How about parental values??? What about individual values???... everything is relative when it comes to divorce ...

 

And I even skipped the part about "childhood deficits"

[Buffy]

The basic public argument is that they are better off in a divorce if the parents cannot get it together. I do not think the chikldren themselves would agree with that.

They never do in the heat of the moment! Its change! They don't like change, and want it to "just go back to the way it was." I know I did, I know my kid does, but by the time I was a teenager, I was saying "my parents getting divorced was the best thing that ever happened to me." My kid is getting there too, but its slower for her because in my case, my parents fought *through* me, so it became obvious fairly quickly the hell I'd have to live through if they stayed together. That's why the "studies" can so often be questionable:

...significant studies show that future maladjustment is prevalent.

The question must be asked, compared to what? If you assume that even a bare majority of marriages are successful, then comparing "adjustment" of divorce-kids versus non-divorce-kids are almost by definition going to "favor" non-divorce. The statistical problem is there is no accurate way to count "people who wanted to get divorced who did not" which is the only comparable sample. So the conclusions are almost guaranteed to be wrong. This goes for the other "success" statisitics you cite as well.

 

Bottom line: there's no argument that happy marriage is better than unhappy marriage, but if you're going to say that unhappy marriages that end in divorce produce more problems than happy marriages is simply non-sequitur....

 

There's a reason Turtle hates probability and statistics,

Buffy

[MagnetMan]

Bottom line: there's no argument that happy marriage is better than unhappy marriage, but if you're going to say that unhappy marriages that end in divorce produce more problems than happy marriages is simply non-sequitur....

 

Buffy

 

I am not questioning the obvious. Nor am I saying that if two parents keep arguing among themselves and do not pause to see their child's point of view and realize that they are carving it's heart in half, that getting a divorce might not seem to be the best solution. But if you are spiritually aware and believe, as I do, that there is more to life than appears on the surface, and that when a child is involved, families from both sides are linked eternally - divorce seems a rather short-sighted way to go.

 

No matter how bitter the argument, or how justified the cause seems, choosing to divorce is to renage on a solemn pledge. That must inevitably reflect on the child's character and future value judgements. Maybe that decision will make the child more careful about choosing their marriage partner. But the stats show that this is not usually the case. If we keep dishonoring our most intimate promises to each, what does that do to the national character down the road? All I am saying is that divorce has to be an extreme option and be seen as such - for no one parent can lay claim to both sides of a child's heart - and that injury is permanent. If two adult try very hard, they can invariably work things out - at least until the child is old enough to agree to the separation in an honorable way.

[Racoon]

Why don't they change the Vows then?

 

To Love and to Cherish...

"Till I get sick of your idiosyncratic behavior do we part?"

[pgrmdave]

No matter how bitter the argument, or how justified the cause seems, choosing to divorce is to renage on a solemn pledge.

 

I've always thought it was an admission of a mistake. If a marriage is destructive, it is short-sighted to stay togeather just for the children. I think that children need a loving home, not a home filled with tension.

[Buffy]

...Nor am I saying that if two parents keep arguing among themselves and do not pause to see their child's point of view and realize that they are carving it's heart in half, that getting a divorce might not seem to be the best solution. But if you are spiritually aware and believe, as I do, that there is more to life than appears on the surface, and that when a child is involved, families from both sides are linked eternally - divorce seems a rather short-sighted way to go.

That's a fine opinion to have. Some of us recognize that unfortunately most people are not as serenely self-controlled as you are. In cases where parents are not going to put the kids first, would you still argue that its better for them not to get divorced?

No matter how bitter the argument, or how justified the cause seems, choosing to divorce is to renage on a solemn pledge. That must inevitably reflect on the child's character and future value judgements.

I think the key problem that I and others here are having with your line of argument basically boils down to the fact that you seem to think that the breaking of a "vow" is worse than condemning kids to a household at war. I can understand that position, but in my opinion, that is putting an extremely high value on vows.

 

I also have to say that its terribly ironic given the attack under which many aspects of the "truth" are being attacked that are far worse, with everyone from Condi Rice to the Enron guys saying "we had no idea" (either they're lying or their so incompetent they don't deserve to hold their positions) to the President and Vice President insisting they can lie whenever they want to, even if its just to make sure they get re-elected. Yes, truth is under attack, and I get far more worried about the effect that *that* has on our youth than difficult but justified decisions to "break solemn vows."

All I am saying is that divorce has to be an extreme option and be seen as such.

I won't disagree with that statement by itself, but,

If two adult try very hard, they can invariably work things out - at least until the child is old enough to agree to the separation in an honorable way.

Maybe you can, but I don't agree that most people can. As I've said above, the data does not support the position that its worse, and most kids *later* agree that it was a good thing in many many cases, but it takes *time* and the longer you wait, the more damage there is to try to repair.

 

You've yet to really propose any public policy initiatives to "solve" this problem so far. Do you have any other than "discouraging" or "condemning" divorce or those who defend its legality?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[MagnetMan]

That's a fine opinion to have. Some of us recognize that unfortunately most people are not as serenely self-controlled as you are. In cases where parents are not going to put the kids first, would you still argue that its better for them not to get divorced?

 

I have been through two divorces and have a 45 year old son who has yet to get over it. In retrospect, I would never have done the same and sought some other solution.

 

I think the key problem that I and others here are having with your line of argument basically boils down to the fact that you seem to think that the breaking of a "vow" is worse than condemning kids to a household at war. I can understand that position, but in my opinion, that is putting an extremely high value on vows.

If one's parents break their p[romise, and break up the home in the process, who then can we trust, if anybody?

 

I also have to say that its terribly ironic given the attack under which many aspects of the "truth" are being attacked that are far worse, with everyone from Condi Rice to the Enron guys saying "we had no idea" (either they're lying or their so incompetent they don't deserve to hold their positions) to the President and Vice President insisting they can lie whenever they want to, even if its just to make sure they get re-elected. Yes, truth is under attack, and I get far more worried about the effect that *that* has on our youth than difficult but justified decisions to "break solemn vows."

 

This is what I am refering to. The distrust and lies begin in the home and are carried outwards. Persobnal honor is loost and nobody cares.

 

You've yet to really propose any public policy initiatives to "solve" this problem so far. Do you have any other than "discouraging" or "condemning" divorce or those who defend its legality?

Cheers,

Buffy

 

I am reluctant to encourage more governemnet interferance in our personal lives, that is why I have taken this position of arguing for personal honor at all costs. But if we can only get back on track via legislation then I would cautiously suggest the following.

 

Marriage guidance education could be made a compulsory school subject.

Gender teaching - ie getting each gender to better understand the psychology of the other, should also be on the corriculum. For instance, girls should know that it can take forty years for a man to master his basic instincts and have a truer sense of the responsibility and advantages of husbandry and fatherhood.

Psychological profiles in mate selection should be widely encouraged.

A three year courtship should be encouraged (celibate if possible) before a marriage licence is issued.

During pregancy, infant rearing classes can be insisted on with infant and child psychology as essential subjects for both husband and wife.

Government could help fund trial separations and give the pair time to get out from under the financial pressure, which is often-times the major cause of a break up.

I am sure there are other suggestions.

 

In the long-term a strong resurgenace of tradtional family values and a restoring of trust in each other's word (rather than via ante-nuptual contract) will result in a more self-policed, less regulated society, Whatever it costs to get there, will be money and effort well spent, with less heartbreak all round.

[pgrmdave]

Magnetman, I don't think you understand that the crux of everybody's arguments really comes down to - we're all different. In many, many ways.

 

Marriage guidance education could be made a compulsory school subject.

 

Many of my friends plan on never being married, or at the very least never having children. Would you force them to do this also? Why should they need to spend time learning a skill they'll never use, which doesn't really benefit them?

Gender teaching - ie getting each gender to better understand the psychology of the other, should also be on the corriculum. For instance, girls should know that it can take forty years for a man to master his basic instincts and have a truer sense of the responsibility and advantages of husbandry and fatherhood.

 

Wow...While I'll admit that there are some basic ways in which the genders are stereotypical, I don't think that it can really be simply understood. Unless you plan on spending years teaching people about the other gender (and let's not forget about homosexuals vs. heterosexuals - do they study their own gender?) you'd have to expect that people will no longer be uninformed, but misinformed - look at how many scientific principles, when taught to someone who doesn't wuite understand, are horribly misrepresented. Not everybody can understand psychology well.

 

Psychological profiles in mate selection should be widely encouraged.

 

Unfortunately, psychological profiles don't really tell you what the person is going to be like at 5 in the morning after ten years of marriage. Nor would they be useful unless people really understood what they were looking for - both what they wanted and what they needed.

 

A three year courtship should be encouraged (celibate if possible) before a marriage licence is issued.

 

Three years is okay, and I understand the idea, but it's not feasible for everybody, and you still can't predict the future. What about the wonderful guy who, after being married for five years, goes to war and comes back bitter and angry? You can't predict traumatic events which can drastically change a person's personality. You can't really predict what a person will be like in ten, twenty, thirty years, no matter how well you know them.

 

During pregancy, infant rearing classes can be insisted on with infant and child psychology as essential subjects for both husband and wife.

 

That sounds okay for some people. What about the working poor - when do they have time? What about adopted children? What about single fathers and mothers? Who's going to pay for all of this?

 

Government could help fund trial separations and give the pair time to get out from under the financial pressure, which is often-times the major cause of a break up.

 

The government shouldn't fund trial seperations, because I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's divorce. And the government does have bankruptcy laws - they aren't perfect, but if you owe me money, I want it - I will feel badly if it hurts your family, but I need money too.

 

 

The truth is, we aren't perfect. People make mistakes, and people sometimes get into marriages which aren't really good. Those people sometimes have children, even though they shouldn't. However, divorce allows the child to have a more stable home, and allows the child the best chance at being happy. Is it as good as a 'perfect' little home, with 2.4 kids, a dog, a cat, and a loving mother and father? No, but it's better than a mother and father who no longer even like each other.

[bartock]

i actually agree with MM here when he says that child psychology classes should be arranged for parents. i would say for all people poor or rich as an adult education that is a must for all.at the same time there should be marrage psychology class as well not just for people who want to get married but also who are married already. helps a lot. :P

[bartock]

actually there should be classes on how to make marriage better or good. IMO can be done.

[InfiniteNow]

actually there should be classes on how to make marriage better or good. IMO can be done.

 

But what happens when someone sleeps through class and cheats off of their neighbor's paper? ;)

[tarak]

Divorces are social contracts/agreements for disagreement rooted specifically in the substratum of cultural values and other laws governing a society.Divorce or staying on are conflicts and compromises between an individuals adaptation of his perceptions to the social structure around him.In societies of the east divorce rates are much lesser compared to west.

I think it is possible to live together even if one disagrees with the other to a great extent with understanding and patience to understand but if this difference of opinion hinders common goals and creates extreme situations which make things difficult a very hard decision like divorce happens.But if a divorce makes the plight of children miserable,hen it is a horrible disengagement.Every human being is endowed with virtues and tolerance is the key to a long standing family relationship.personally I feel in the present world when life runs at a fast pace , life is too short for having more than one long term relationship with children.One cannot do enough justice to such a relationship as human being has entered an era of multitasking and a world teaming with economic activity.Ironically such environment provides opportunities for interaction and distraction from the wedlock.But the paradox is to sutain a family relationship which is the first society formed in our ascent towaRDS CIVILIZATION and which made us what we stand for today.

[Michaelangelica]

:)

environment cartoons - offthemark.com - by Mark Parisi

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Oh God another bleeding heart do it for the children type (Magnetman)

 

First off staying married "for the kids" is foolish...it's only deepens the anamosity between you and your spouse, creating a hostile (tense) environment for all involved filled with perpetual lies.

 

Secondly children do not know enough about life to be the deciding parties for such things as divorce.

 

Third Humans are (and many other creatures) by nature monogomous last I heard.

 

Fourth having been raised in a variety of housholds before being adopted by a single parent I can honestly say that a loving home is the most important thing for a childs welfare...It's not a matter of how many parents but how much love is shown to the child.

 

Finally having experienced divorce from all concievable sides (husband,friend,son, divorcee) I must say there are times when enough is enough. For example after 6 years of marrage to my ex. suicide started looking like a really good idea...Thankfully I got smart and got out. My (present) wife had to fight to get away from her ex. sadly to late to protect her and her children from years of mental, physical and sexual abuse.

 

 

Yeah there are those very few divorces that involve couples that fell out of love, But I guaranty the the bulk are due to a harmful environment created by one or both parties. Ie. Abusive which can be Mental-mind games, name calling, manipulation etc. Physical- this ones rather obvious, sexual-no means no even if you're married to the person saying no, child molestation, cheating, etc.

No-one should ever have to endure any of these and to do it for the children is to gauranty that they will be developmentally stunted, and will develop the same unhealthy behavior.

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the problem with the cultural acceptance of divorce is it creates the option to quit, such that people start to plan their future that way. Let me give an analogy. Say you have a child about to start college. This is his college wedding day where is is starting the honeymoon of fun. At the beginning of freshman year you tell him, college can be fun but it can it also a lot of work and can create a lot of pressure. Your mother and I will give the option to quit. It is better to stick it out and do well, but you can quit anytime you want.

 

With that option available, many students will begin the process of thinking I can quit at anytime. What that means is why bust my hump. I should make this freshman college experience more fun and enjoyable. Once the fun is gone and it is time to work, the quit option will always be there. By then, he is far behind and the pressure gets worse than if he planned better.

 

If instead the parents said quitting or failing is not an option. The freshman goes into this without a quit option and has to plan differently. He is looking further down the road and tries to find a better balance between work and play, only playing after the work is done. He is trying to lower the stress so he can last the duration. He may even chose the college differently.

 

With divorce the quit option is available. The freshman fun is being in love and playing house. This is analogous to all the fraternity parties. But after this easy part is over, and after falling behind, the pressure begins. The quit option is sort of like being able to transfer to another freshman year. Much of the stress leading to divorce is bad planning due to the option.

 

If you knew you can't divorce your choice of mate may be different. It is better to find a team player who can last the entire game. If the quit option is available, it may be better to get a playmate and ride the wave until it crashes into the shore. Playmates are good in the first half of a marriage, maybe through sophomore year, and seem to fade at second half.

 

Part of the problem is culture does not use an objective scale in terms of relative merit. Obviously marriage is harder, which is why we have the quit option. This clause is there began it is too difficult for some. Culture needs to give more credit to those that last.